J. W. WALLACE, CAROLINE H. WALLACE, HIS WIFE; COLONIAL PROPERTIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; A. M. HENDERSON AND LUCILLE HENDERSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALTER W. CRUIT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a mortgage foreclosure decree, finding no basis for a money judgment against parties who did not obligate themselves to pay the debt.
No, there was no foundation in the bill of complaint or the proof for a money decree against Colonial Properties, Inc., or A. M. Henderson and his wife, Lucille Henderson, as they had not obligated themselves to pay the indebtedness.
“Neither of the defendants except J. W. Wallace had obligated to pay the indebtedness secured by the mortgage sought to be foreclosed.”
Establishes the basis for the court's decision regarding liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, including the mortgagors (J. W. Wallace and wife) and other parties who acquired interests in the property or mortgage, appealed a foreclo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deficiency Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
[*375] Buford, J.
This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The-defendants in the court below, appellants here, J. W. Wallace and his wife, Caroline Wallace, executed the mortgage-sought to be foreclosed. The other parties defendant were made such in the court below because they had either acquired some interest in the property, or in the mortgage embracing the same property.
Neither of the defendants except J. W. Wallace had obligated to pay the indebtedness secured by the mortgage sought to be foreclosed.
We find no material error as disclosed by the record except that appearing in the final decree. The decree finds that there is due and owing from the defendants certain sums of money named in the decree and the decree further-orders'that the defendants should forthwith yield and pay unto the complainant certain sums of money named in the decree.
The decree further provides that the court should retain jurisdiction of the cause to settle other questions of which the court has jurisdiction, including that of the entry of deficiency decree in the event said property does not sell at. the sale for the amount of the decree.
There is no foundation in the bill of complaint or in the proof for a money decree against Colonial Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, or against A. M. Henderson or his-wife, Lucille Henderson. Therefore, the decree should be reversed, with directions to the chancellor to enter a decree not inconsistent with .this opinion, and it is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Brown, .J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baring Indus., Inc. v. Rayglo, Inc., 303 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1974)…y indemnification of Rayglo in the event of Baring’s breach of the contract. Furthermore, there were no allegations in the complaint concerning loss of investment, loss of profits or accounts. Petitioner urges conflict with Wallace v. Cruit (1930), 99 Fla. 374, 126 So. 307, in which this Court reversed a money decree explaining that there was no “foundation in the bill of complaint or in the proof” for such a decree. Conflict is also urged with Magic City Grocery, Inc. v. Knowles (1938), 132 Fla. 656, 18…